JUDGMENT : Subramonium Prasad, J. Instant Writ Appeal is directed against the order, dated 9/1/2013, made in Writ Petition No. 20744 of 2013. 2. Facts leading to the Writ Appeal are as follows:- When second respondent was working as a Driver, in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram Division III) Limited, Kanchipuram, he was served with a charge memo, dated 13/9/1994. There were two charges found in the charge memo and they are as follows:- (i) During his service, he swindled two cans of diesel, measuring 10 liters. (ii) He has used 48 liters of diesel in excess. 3. Second respondent, submitted his explanation, on 1/9/1994. Enquiry Officer held that charges were proved. Based on the Enquiry Officer's report, on 15/5/1996, second respondent was dismissed from service. The second respondent preferred statutory appeal against the order of dismissal, which was also rejected by the Appellate Authority. The conciliation proceedings ended in failure. As against the order of dismissal, second respondent raised an Industrial Dispute, in I.D.No.650 of 1996, before II Additional Labour Court, Chennai, for reinstatement with continuity of service and backwages along with all other attendant benefits. Labour Court, Chennai held that the complaint was lodged by the Conductor, who had not been examined. In the enquiry, only the Branch Manager was examined. Labour Court held that Testimony of the Branch Manager, cannot be accepted, without the Conductor being examined. 4. Labour Court found that as per the complaint, diesel was filled in two plastic cans and was kept in a cobbler shop and diesel was refilled again. Owner of the shop was not examined. Labour Court, therefore, held that charges against the second respondent as not proved. Labour Court, set aside the order of dismissal and directed reinstatement. However, the labour Court, denied backwages to the second respondent. 5. Being aggrieved, appellant herein, challenged the order of the labour Court, by filing Writ Petition No.20744 of 2003. Learned Single Judge of this Court, upheld the findings of the labour Court, holding that Management failed to examine the Conductor, who was the complainant and therefore, the punishment of dismissal from service, ought not to have been awarded, to the second respondent, on the basis of the testimony of the Branch Manager, who had not seen the incident. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the materials available on record. 7. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the materials available on record. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the present case was one of theft and the finding of the enquiry report ought not to have been interfered with. It was urged that since the enquiry was fair and proper, labour Court ought not to have interfered with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, which was accepted by the Management. We are not inclined to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant Corporation. 8. Material on record discloses that the entire matter arose, based upon a complaint given by the Conductor, but, the Conductor has not been examined. Branch Manager, who was examined, was not a witness to the incident. Other than the examination of the Branch Manager, no other document has been filed by the Corporation, to bring home the guilt of the second respondent. 9. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the Writ Petition. We find no infirmity, in the order of the learned single Judge, dated 9/1/2013, passed in W.P.No.20744 of 2003. 10. Accordingly, Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.